|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3976174)
It was unannounced and nobody was informed that input was needed and an MOU was being considered. What does the policy manual have to say about memrat? You should have just to bolster your position but you didn’t. Shadow governance sews distrust. Back to the real question, what did we get? Not what do you think we will eventually get.
And why did the MOU announcement lead with “we didn’t write them into compliance?” Hmmmm Precedent has been grievance settlements don’t go to memrat. Yes, the policy manual has changes to PWA must go to memrat but the interpretation of that is for items outside of the grievance process. If you don’t like that, write a resolution to change it but the PMRC doesn’t meet again for a few years. |
Originally Posted by SideStickMonkey
(Post 3976214)
Precedent has been grievance settlements don’t go to memrat. Yes, the policy manual has changes to PWA must go to memrat but the interpretation of that is for items outside of the grievance process.
If you don’t like that, write a resolution to change it but the PMRC doesn’t meet again for a few years. |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3976228)
There was a grievance about 23M7 use skipping to IAs? I thought you said that everything was in compliance.
|
Originally Posted by SideStickMonkey
(Post 3976241)
I didn’t say that. I’ve been saying we have a grievance process for a reason. Sometimes that process results in a settlement because we have not had good results when it goes to mediation.
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3976086)
They could cover them earlier because someone takes on the alligator NOT closest to the boat. More people to engage will create longer approach time for the alligators.
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3976295)
So it wasn’t a grievance and should have been sent to memrat. The debate should have happened prior.
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3975750)
What part of ALPA agreed to allow the current policy to stand, don't you understand? I'm not the one who said we re-affirmed previous agreements but it's either true or not. If true then it's writing into compliance, and if not then this MOU was for nothing.
The alternative is going to an arbitrator and hoping they rule in our favor. Arbitrators generally side with each side about half the time and try to issue non-decisions so they don’t make either side mad enough to strike them off the list. It doesn’t matter how good or bad your case is. I like the MOU solution that gives us everything we wanted (and then some) better. The Railway Labor Act is awesome sometimes and sucks sometimes, but it is our reality and we have to live within it. We play by the government’s rules and we play the hand we are dealt. This MOU played our hand almost perfectly in my opinion. |
Sick question:
So I was below 50 hrs of sick used before the memo passed. So if I call sick now, my look back next year will show below 50hrs regardless? |
Originally Posted by Meme In Command
(Post 3976471)
Sick question:
So I was below 50 hrs of sick used before the memo passed. So if I call sick now, my look back next year will show below 50hrs regardless? QHCP status being where you automatically have to provide a note for every sick call. After 120 hours in 12 bid periods, rolling. |
Originally Posted by flyskisail
(Post 3976474)
I don’t believe so. Your sick usage will show above 50, however the look back, which only counts towards QHCP status will not.
QHCP status being where you automatically have to provide a note for every sick call. After 120 hours in 12 bid periods, rolling. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:10 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands